Economy Pharmaceutical giant to charge $3,000 for $10 coronavirus treatment despite massive public subsidies

[monster zero]

It's ok because Gilead will reinvest the money.





In politicians political campaigns so those politicians can give them more public dollars. It's a beautiful system, "democracy and capitalism".

You elect whoever receives the most campaign dollars and they funnel tax dollars to private corporations.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

What country with universal healthcare has produced a vaccine that is further along ?

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they won't charge $3,000 when they do.

 

[The Audience]

And this is why we need to all forget about this fucking 'vaccine' for covid-19.

Even if it ever transpires, which I highly doubt it ever will, majority of people on the planet won't be able to afford it. It will not be free. It will also be heavily prioritised, meaning your average 30yr old, healthy mask-wearing germophobe will be back of the line and rightly so.

The line is forming for a COVID-19 vaccine. Who should be at the front?

This was an interesting read and raised the point of whether ethnic minorities should get some priority for vaccination, given how these groups appear to be disproportionately affected by the coronavirus. Quite the consideration, given recent events.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

‘Murica

 

[brother mouzone]

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they won't charge $3,000 when they do.

Lol they would have already charged more than that in taxes over the years preceding.

Are we really bitching about life saving medicine costing 3,000? Wasn't that the higher number that only the insurance would pay anyway lol?

 

[cincymma79]

Lol they would have already charged more than that in taxes over the years preceding.

Are we really bitching about life saving medicine costing 3,000? Wasn't that the higher number that only the insurance would pay anyway lol?

Wasting your time. They either can't get it and aren't worth the effort, or are purposefully missing it

 

[terrapin]

Lol they would have already charged more than that in taxes over the years preceding.

Are we really bitching about life saving medicine costing 3,000? Wasn't that the higher number that only the insurance would pay anyway lol?

yes we are. for many working people 3000 dollars is a bill they cannot handle. imagine 3 people in one family getting it and needing that medication who are uninsured.

our tax dollars pay for the R and D on medications and then we pay high prices to subsidies the low prices other countries pay (because they are allowed to negotiate prices) all while drug companies are among the most profitable business on the planet.

its stupid as hell.

 

[Natural Order]

That's a different discussion. You can't price fix on the back end and not on the front end. When it costs $400K+ in private loans to become a Doctor you can't then tell them to work for free.

In spirit, yes, I wish all men and women cared about their fellow man to the point they would give up profits in times like this. The data I've seen is that there is a good chance that Gilead won't make anywhere near typical margins due to the time period and cost of the medicine. The R&D costs alone were 100s of millions.

On the surface it sounds like a lot of money. If it in fact reduces hospital stays like Gilead claims by as much as 12 days it is a HUGE saving and value to the consumer.

I don't demonize business for the sake of demonizing.

Out of likes, but appreciate the tempered response. Good points.

 

[Natural Order]

Of the 10 most profitable industries in the US you have hospitals at number 4 and health & medical insurance at number 6. That's fucking insane.

Yeah that's pretty gross.

 

[Sano]

Universal healthcare/Medicare for all doesn't look so radical now does it?

If only there was a candidate you who actually gave a fuck about this AND was willing to fight for it.... Guess that ship has sailed. At this point I'm tempted to say that the American people reap what they sow, yet, I feel for the millions of citizens struggling with healthcare on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

[asdffdsa]

Yeah that's pretty gross.

But not surprising. We all only get one shot at life, so it's pretty natural for an industry to take advantage of that scarcity especially when insurance companies and the govt. are complicit in making healthcare as opaque and complicated as possible.

I just looked up the top 10 most profitable industries in the US and most of the others don't do much more than siphon money from the rest of the population.

 

[Natural Order]

But not surprising. We all only get one shot at life, so it's pretty natural for an industry to take advantage of that scarcity especially when insurance companies and the govt. are complicit in making healthcare as opaque and complicated as possible.

I just looked up the top 10 most profitable industries in the US and most of the others don't do much more than siphon money from the rest of the population.

Fair view. It's very unfortunate though.

 

[KnightTemplar]

I thought about putting this in the COVID-19 mega-thread, but this is really about the broader issue of exploitative American healthcare systems.

The business section of the LA Times had a very good piece of this:

By DAVID LAZARUS
BUSINESS COLUMNIST

JUNE 29, 2020
2:53 PM

Drugmaker Gilead says it’s doing you a favor by setting the price for its pending COVID-19 treatment, remdesivir, at more than $2,000 for government agencies and over $3,000 for private insurers.

“In normal circumstances, we would price a medicine according to the value it provides,” the company’s chief executive, Daniel O’Day, said in an “open letter” posted Monday.

He said faster hospital discharges resulting from treatment with remdesivir would result in “savings of approximately $12,000 per patient.”

“We have decided to price remdesivir well below this value,” O’Day said, adding that this will “ensure broad and equitable access at a time of urgent global need.”

There are a few things wrong with this.

First, there’s this bizarre argument that just because a drug may save money on hospitalization costs, a pharmaceutical company is entitled to pocket at least some of the difference.

That’s like a car mechanic charging thousands of dollars to rotate your tires because, if you got into an accident due to wear and tear, your healthcare costs could be stratospheric, so don’t complain.

Then there’s the broader issue of pricing a drug relative to its “value” to society. In theory, there’s no limit to the value of any drug that keeps you alive, so a drug company is entitled to charge as much as it wants.

Finally, and perhaps most important, you’re not a passive bystander in this equation. You’re an investor.

In developing remdesivir, Gilead received at least $70.5 million from taxpayers, according to the advocacy group Public Citizen, which reviewed regulatory filings related to the drug.

“Initially tested by Gilead as a hepatitis C treatment, remdesivir was refined, developed and evaluated by federal scientists for Ebola and coronaviruses,” the group said.

“Federal scientists led the team that found that remdesivir was active against coronaviruses, and the federal government provided funding for Gilead’s work on the compound,” it noted.

“The National Institutes of Health ran the trial that led to remdesivir’s emergency use authorization, and public funding is supporting clinical trials around the world today.”

Which is to say, you’re as much a stakeholder in remdesivir as any Gilead stockholder. Yet you won’t share in Gilead’s profit from the drug. You’ll pay whatever the company charges.

“At this point, they have us over a barrel,” said Victoria Perez, an assistant professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University.

“In absolute terms, the price for remdesivir seems pretty expensive,” she told me. “They seem to be pricing it as aggressively as they can.”

There’s a reason for this. Perez said Gilead knows it’s playing Beat the Clock with a COVID-19 treatment.

“Once a vaccine becomes available,” she said, “demand for their treatment will go way down.”

Ben Wakana, executive director of Patients for Affordable Drugs, said the pricing of remdesivir “proves that Gilead aims to profiteer off the COVID-19 pandemic.”

“Gilead will realize profits far in excess of its cost to develop and produce a drug that has yet to demonstrate it will save lives,” he said.

These are tricky issues. On the one hand, no one wants to stifle innovation or research into potentially life-saving medicines.

On the other, how much is too much when it comes to drugmakers profiting off the sick?

“The price of remdesivir is set to maximize profits,” said Jose Manuel Fernandez, an associate professor of economics at the University of Louisville.

“What this means is that you cannot set it too high as people would be unwilling or unable to pay,” he said. “If you set it too low, then you are leaving money on the table.”

Nearly all other developed countries limit how much pharmaceutical companies can charge for prescription medications. Fair profits are fine. Price gouging is not.

The United States doesn’t operate like that. We allow drug companies to charge as much as they please, which is why, to cite just one example, the cost of insulin has nearly tripled in recent years for people with diabetes.

So excuse us, Gilead, if we’re a little wary of drug industry claims that you have our best interests at heart.

O’Day said the company is “in uncharted territory in pricing remdesivir.”

“As the world continues to reel from the human, social and economic impact of this pandemic, we believe that pricing remdesivir well below value is the right and responsible thing to do,” he said.

This is disingenuous on a number of levels. First, this is anything but uncharted territory. This is a huge business opportunity for any drug company that can come up with a working treatment or vaccine as quickly as possible.

Gilead isn’t doing things differently. It’s beginning the pricing conversation at an artificially high level based on the drug’s “value” to the public rather than its actual development cost.

The company is also admitting that the price of remdesivir isn’t just a reflection of its R&D cost. The price is also intended to help Gilead “maintain our long-term research in antivirals and to invest in scientific innovation that might help generations to come.”

In other words, it’s intended to support future research that may have nothing to do with the coronavirus. Such work is potentially important. But it’s not the responsibility of COVID-19 patients to pay for.

What’s needed are laws similar to those in other developed nations that ensure drug companies aren’t abusing their market power. Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices would be a valuable first step.

What’s also needed is greater transparency. I’ve long believed that prescription drugs should be treated like utility costs. Drug companies should be required to justify their pricing before a panel of experts.

If a sky-high price is warranted, so be it. If not, the panel of experts could help guide the manufacturer to a more equitable price, as state regulators do with power and water rates.

“I don’t really expect transparency from Gilead in its decision making,” said Colleen Carey, an assistant professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University.

“I largely expect Gilead to make decisions that are good for Gilead and then issue press releases that put those decisions in the best possible light,” she told me.

Still, Carey said the pricing of remdesivir may be reasonable compared with other big-ticket treatments, such as cancer drugs, for which Americans pay more than anyone else.

“One thing that I am very curious about is why Gilead is announcing a price now,” she added. “Was Gilead trying to get a price out there before more data is published?”

Again, transparency is key. If Gilead wants to charge government agencies $2,340 for a five-day course of remdesivir — and 33% more, or $3,120, for private insurers — let it clearly explain why these prices are necessary.

Out-of-pocket costs for most people with insurance will be lower. But high list prices are a key factor in annual rate increases.

I, for one, would appreciate Gilead addressing the fact that remdesivir wasn’t even originally intended to help fight COVID-19. Would the pricing be as high if the drug was being used for its initial goal of treating Ebola?

I suspect otherwise. COVID-19 opens the door to the lucrative U.S. market and other developed nations. Ebola, which was largely confined to the developing world, did not.

Drug companies keep insisting they only want to help people and we should trust them to do right.

There’s a name for that: the honor system. And it’s a lousy way to practice healthcare.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-06-29/column-coronavirus-gilead-remdesivir-price
​

Like the man said,



Big Pharma are pond scum. Anyone who thinks differently hasn't been paying attention.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

Lol they would have already charged more than that in taxes over the years preceding.

Are we really bitching about life saving medicine costing 3,000? Wasn't that the higher number that only the insurance would pay anyway lol?

Well the data shows that countries that have Universal healthcare spend significantly less on healthcare than what the US spends, and a Universal healthcare system would save American citizens 2-5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
Yes, because I think the life saving medicine should be free. That way everyone will have access to it. I don't see what's so unreasonable or radical about that.

 

[Utahraptor Ostrommaysi]

If only there was a candidate you who actually gave a fuck about this AND was willing to fight for it.... Guess that ship has sailed. At this point I'm tempted to say that the American people reap what they sow, yet, I feel for the millions of citizens struggling with healthcare on both sides of the political spectrum.

Yes, unfortunately we are going stuck with either Trump or Biden for the next 4 years. And they are going to keep the shitty privatized healthcare system we have now. Meanwhile, millions of people will not have access to healthcare because they can't afford it.
Bernie was the president we need, but it seems like Trump/Biden is the president we deserve because we were the ones who elected them.

 

[The Audience]

US buys up world stock of key Covid-19 drug

"Remdesivir...The first 140,000 doses, supplied to drug trials around the world, have been used up. The Trump administration has now bought more than 500,000 doses, which is all of Gilead’s production for July and 90% of August and September.

“President Trump has struck an amazing deal to ensure Americans have access to the first authorised therapeutic for Covid-19,” said the US health and human services secretary, Alex Azar. “To the extent possible, we want to ensure that any American patient who needs remdesivir can get it. The Trump administration is doing everything in our power to learn more about life-saving therapeutics for Covid-19 and secure access to these options for the American people.”

They’ve got access to most of the drug supply [of remdesivir], so there’s nothing for Europe,” said Dr Andrew Hill, senior visiting research fellow at Liverpool University. Hill said there was a way for the UK to secure supplies of this and other drugs during the pandemic, through what is known as a compulsory licence, which overrides the intellectual property rights of the company. That would allow the UK government to buy from generic companies in Bangladesh or India, where Gilead’s patent is not recognised.

The UK has always upheld patents, backing the argument of pharma companies that they need their 20-year monopoly to recoup the money they put into research and development. But other countries have shown an interest in compulsory licensing. “It is a question of what countries are prepared to do if this becomes a problem,” said Hill."

America first i guess. Interesting point about overriding the IP.

 

[hitcher]

US buys up world stock of key Covid-19 drug

"Remdesivir...The first 140,000 doses, supplied to drug trials around the world, have been used up. The Trump administration has now bought more than 500,000 doses, which is all of Gilead’s production for July and 90% of August and September.

“President Trump has struck an amazing deal to ensure Americans have access to the first authorised therapeutic for Covid-19,” said the US health and human services secretary, Alex Azar. “To the extent possible, we want to ensure that any American patient who needs remdesivir can get it. The Trump administration is doing everything in our power to learn more about life-saving therapeutics for Covid-19 and secure access to these options for the American people.”

They’ve got access to most of the drug supply [of remdesivir], so there’s nothing for Europe,” said Dr Andrew Hill, senior visiting research fellow at Liverpool University. Hill said there was a way for the UK to secure supplies of this and other drugs during the pandemic, through what is known as a compulsory licence, which overrides the intellectual property rights of the company. That would allow the UK government to buy from generic companies in Bangladesh or India, where Gilead’s patent is not recognised.

The UK has always upheld patents, backing the argument of pharma companies that they need their 20-year monopoly to recoup the money they put into research and development. But other countries have shown an interest in compulsory licensing. “It is a question of what countries are prepared to do if this becomes a problem,” said Hill."

America first i guess. Interesting point about overriding the IP.

If that actually helps, Europe (or any other country for that matter) should not give a fuck about IP. That's a pretty clear cut case imo. If Gilead cries, well that's bad luck innit?

 

[HockeyBjj]

@Trotsky another for your gulag sweepstakes

https://kttc.com/2020/07/01/pharmaceutical-industry-sues-to-block-minnesota-insulin-law/

Pharmaceutical industry suing Minnesota for its law that they have to provide low cost insulin for Low income diabetic patients who qualify for this state run insulin plan

 

[The Audience]

They showed that it reduced recovery time for patients receiving oxygen by average 4 days over a placebo control, but no significant difference to mortality. 4 days is something, and especially with the complications that can occur in hospitalised covid patients, but its not a wonder drug by any means. I did read though that Gilead are developing a formulation for children, and that it is likely that the drug is also going to be widely administered for milder cases so there will be probably be some over-prescription:

"Wall Street analysts view the price points as “reasonable” and “in line with expectations,” though SVB Leerink’s Geoffrey Porges said he had previously expected a U.S. price that was 75% higher than the Medicare price and 33% higher than the commercial health insurance price. Still, he’s bullish at wider spread use of remdesivir among less severely ill COVID-19 patients, as well. In the U.S., physicians can prescribe drugs “off-label” at their discretion.

“At this price we expect routine adoption of remdesivir for almost all moderate to severe COVID patients in the U.S.,” he wrote in a note to investors.

Gilead is also running clinical trials for an inhaled version of remdesivir and for its use in children."
(Marketwatch)

Seems like the trial [publicly funded] referred to above that was published in NEJM -upon which the efficacy of Remdesivir was being relied upon, contained significant elements of Gilead influence:
"The published report also disclosed that Gilead supplied the drug for the trial, one of the trial investigators was a Gilead employee, and six other authors declared financial ties to Gilead. Finally, an additional note disclosed that employees of Gilead “participated in discussion about protocol development and in weekly protocol team calls,” a level of engagement suggesting this drug trial could not be regarded as independent from the manufacturer."

In fact, it was the second trial published in NEJM on Remdesivir; the first was Gilead funded and: "a third of the authors were Gilead employees... Gilead's press release reported “clinical improvement in 68% of patients in this limited dataset.”. Despite being a non-randomised, uncontrolled, company funded study of just 53 patients, media headlines described “hopeful” signs and reported “two thirds” of patients showing improvement."

Contrast this with a study published in the Lancet 2 weeks later: "the Lancet published a randomised placebo controlled trial of remdesivir from China, finding no statistically significant clinical benefit in the primary outcome of time to clinical improvement. 12% per cent of participants taking remdesivir stopped treatment early because of adverse events, compared with 5% taking placebo."

"On the same day as the lacklustre Lancet findings were published, two other events helped sustain global hype about remdesivir. First, an upbeat media release by Gilead promoted preliminary results from another company funded study, still weeks away from submission for peer review. Second, Anthony Fauci, a member of President Trump’s coronavirus task force, unexpectedly announced preliminary findings from a publicly funded trial being run in the US. Adding to Trump’s previous promotion of remdesivir as a potential “game-changer,” Fauci told the world the trial’s results suggested the drug could become the “standard of care” for covid-19, before any peer reviewed data were available for scrutiny."

[above quotes from: Commercial interest and covid19]

Big pharma in action?
So you have in Remdesivir, an antiviral drug that was initially developed by Gilead for hepatitis, but has reportedly proven ineffective, and subsequently tried in the treatment of Ebola and again shown to be ineffective -with reports from DRC that large scale vaccination effectively ended that outbreak. Might Gilead have used the current crisis-led lack of proper scrutiny and fast-tracking of data to repurpose an unsuccessful piece of their portfolio into a much-awaited 'game-changing' treatment? The fact that the US has bought up the world's supply for the next three months, will surely also only create further demand for those countries desperate not to miss out when stocks are replenished; Gilead dumping remdesivir on a desperate global population?

 

[blaseblah]

This is where deregulation of the economy gets you. Thanks Reagan.